Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7–23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5–22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·969, 95% CI 0·800–1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7–9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7–6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552–0·779; one-sided p<0·0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand–foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20·7 months (95% CI 18·4–24·6) versus 12·9 months (10·1–20·4) in the axitinib group (p=0·0116), and 20·2 months (17·1–32·0) versus 14·8 months (12·0–17·7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0·0020). Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Pfizer Inc.

The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544–0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pfizer Inc.

Background There remains a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) combinations ± vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy (TT) in translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC). Methods This is a retrospective study of patients with advanced tRCC treated with ICT combinations at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only cases with confirmed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were included. Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST, and overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Results There were 29 patients identified with median age of 38 (21-70) years, and F:M ratio 0.9:1. FISH revealed TFE3 and TFEB translocations in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT were used in 18 and 11 patients, respectively. Seventeen (59%) patients received ICT combinations as first-line therapy. ORR was 1/18 (5.5%) for dual ICT and 4/11 (36%) for ICT + VEGF TT. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, median PFS was 2.8 and 5.4 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. Median OS from metastatic disease was 17.8 and 30.7 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. Conclusion In this retrospective study of advanced tRCC, limited response and survival were seen after frontline dual ICT combination therapy, while ICT + VEGF TT therapy offered some efficacy. Due to the heterogeneity of tRCC, insights into the biological underpinnings are necessary to develop more effective therapies. This article evaluates the clinical activity of immune checkpoint therapy combinations with or without VEGF targeted therapy in patients with translocation renal cell carcinoma.

Ipilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and has shown promising activity in advanced melanoma. We aimed to ascertain the antitumour efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. We undertook a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial in 66 centres from 12 countries. 217 patients with previously treated stage III (unresectable) or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned a fixed dose of ipilimumab of either 10 mg/kg (n=73), 3 mg/kg (n=72), or 0·3 mg/kg (n=72) every 3 weeks for four cycles (induction) followed by maintenance therapy every 3 months. Randomisation was done with a permuted block procedure, stratified on the basis of type of previous treatment. The primary endpoint was best overall response rate (the proportion of patients with a complete or partial response, according to modified WHO criteria). Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, whereas safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of ipilimumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00289640. The best overall response rate was 11·1% (95% CI 4·9–20·7) for 10 mg/kg, 4·2% (0·9–11·7) for 3 mg/kg, and 0% (0·0–4·9) for 0·3 mg/kg (p=0·0015; trend test). Immune-related adverse events of any grade arose in 50 of 71, 46 of 71, and 19 of 72 patients at doses of 10 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, and 0·3 mg/kg, respectively; the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were gastrointestinal immune-related events (11 in the 10 mg/kg group, two in the 3 mg/kg group, none in the 0·3 mg/kg group) and diarrhoea (ten in the 10 mg/kg group, one in the 3 mg/kg group, none in the 0·3 mg/kg group). Ipilimumab elicited a dose-dependent effect on efficacy and safety measures in pretreated patients with advanced melanoma, lending support to further studies at a dose of 10 mg/kg. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Combining targeted treatments for renal cell carcinoma has been suggested as a possible method to improve treatment efficacy. We aimed to assess the potential synergistic or additive effect of the combination of bevacizumab, directed against the VEGF receptor, and temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. TORAVA was an open-label, multicentre randomised phase 2 study undertaken in 24 centres in France. Patients aged 18 years or older who had untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to receive the combination of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and temsirolimus (25 mg weekly; group A), or one of the standard treatments: sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off; group B), or the combination of interferon alfa (9 mIU three times per week) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; group C). Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures with computer-generated permuted blocks of four and eight patients stratified by participating centre and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 48 weeks (four follow-up CT scans), which was expected to be above 50% in group A. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is ongoing for long-term overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00619268. Between March 3, 2008 and May 6, 2009, 171 patients were randomly assigned: 88 to the experimental group (group A), 42 to group B, and 41 to group C. PFS at 48 weeks was 29·5% (26 of 88 patients, 95% CI 20·0–39·1) in group A, 35·7% (15 of 42, 21·2–50·2) in group B, and 61·0% (25 of 41, 46·0–75·9) in group C. Median PFS was 8·2 months (95% CI 7·0–9·6) in group A, 8·2 months (5·5–11·7) in group B, and 16·8 months (6·0–26·0) in group C. 45 (51%) of 88 patients in group A stopped treatment for reasons other than progression compared with five (12%) of 42 in group B and 15 (38%) of 40 in group C. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 68 (77%) of 88 patients in group A versus 25 (60%) of 42 in group B and 28 (70%) of 40 in group C. Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (44%) of 88, 13 (31%) of 42, and 18 (45%) of 40 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The toxicity of the temsirolimus and bevacizumab combination was much higher than anticipated and limited treatment continuation over time. Clinical activity was low compared with the benefit expected from sequential use of each targeted therapy. This combination cannot be recommended for first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. French Ministry of Health and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

Abstract Background MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (TRCC) is a rare and aggressive subgroup of renal cell carcinoma harboring high expression of c-MET. While TRCC response rates to VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors are limited, efficacy of cabozantinib (a VEGFR, MET, and AXL inhibitor) in this subgroup is unclear. Methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective, international cohort study of patients with TRCC treated with cabozantinib. The main objectives were to estimate response rate according to RECIST 1.1 and to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Fifty-two patients with metastatic TRCC treated in the participating centers and evaluable for response were included. Median age at metastatic diagnosis was 40 years (IQR 28.5-53). Patients’ IMDC risk groups at diagnosis were favorable (9/52), intermediate (35/52), and poor (8/52). Eleven (21.2%) patients received cabozantinib as frontline therapy, 15 (28.8%) at second line, and 26 (50%) at third line and beyond. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 17.3%, including 2 complete responses and 7 partial responses. For 26 (50%) patients, stable disease was the best response. With a median follow-up of 25.1 months (IQR 12.6-39), median PFS was 6.8 months (95%CI 4.6-16.3) and median OS was 18.3 months (95%CI 17.0-30.6). No difference of response was identified according to fusion transcript features. Conclusion This real-world study provides evidence of the activity of cabozantinib in TRCC, with more durable responses than those observed historically with other VEGFR-TKIs or ICIs. Microphtalmia transcription factor (MiT) family translocation renal cell carcinoma (TRCC) is a rare subtype of renal cell carcinoma.

The efficacy of anti‐angiogenic treatment by targeting VEGF/VEGF receptors in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) varies from patient to patient. Discovering the reasons behind this variability could lead to the identification of relevant therapeutic targets. Thus, we investigated the novel splice variants of VEGF that are less efficiently inhibited by anti‐VEGF/VEGFR targeting than the conventional isoforms. By in silico analysis, we identified a novel splice acceptor in the last intron of the VEGF gene resulting in an insertion of 23 bp in VEGF mRNA. Such an insertion can shift the open‐reading frame in previously described splice variants of VEGF (VEGFXXX), leading to a change in the C‐terminal part of the VEGF protein. Next, we analysed the expression of these alternatively spliced VEGF new isoforms (VEGFXXX/NF) in normal tissues and in RCC cell lines by qPCR and ELISA, and we investigated the role of VEGF222/NF (equivalent to VEGF165) in physiological and pathological angiogenesis. Our in vitro data demonstrated that recombinant VEGF222/NF stimulated endothelial cell proliferation and vascular permeability by activating VEGFR2. In addition, VEGF222/NF overexpression enhanced proliferation and metastatic properties of RCC cells, whereas downregulation of VEGF222/NF resulted in cell death. We also generated an in vivo model of RCC by implanting RCC cells overexpressing VEGF222/NF in mice, which we treated with polyclonal anti‐VEGFXXX/NF antibodies. VEGF222/NF overexpression enhanced tumour formation with aggressive properties and a fully functional vasculature, while treatment with anti‐VEGFXXX/NF antibodies slowed tumour growth by inhibiting tumour cell proliferation and angiogenesis. In a patient cohort from the NCT00943839 clinical trial, we investigated the relationship between plasmatic VEGFXXX/NF levels, resistance to anti‐VEGFR therapy and survival. High plasmatic VEGFXXX/NF levels correlated with shorter survival and lower efficacy of anti‐angiogenic drugs. Our data confirmed the existence of new VEGF isoforms that could serve as novel therapeutic targets in patients with RCC that are resistant to anti‐VEGFR therapy. We identified new splice variants of VEGF (VEGFXXX/NF) by bioinformatic analysis and molecular approaches, and we observed that VEGFXXX/NF stimulated angio/lymphangiogenesis and vascular permeability. High levels of VEGFXXX/NF correlated with shorter survival and resistance to anti‐angiogenic drugs (AAD) in patients with metastatic renal cancer. Thus, VEGFXXX/NF could serve as a relevant therapeutic target, a prognostic marker and a predictive marker for the efficacy of AAD.

PurposeBrain metastases (BM) usually represent a poor prognostic factor in solid tumors. About 10% of patients with renal cancer (RCC) will present BM. Local therapies such as stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and surgery are used to achieve brain control. We compared survival between patients with synchronous BM (SynBM group) and metachronous BM (MetaBM group).MethodsIt is a retrospective study of patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and BM treated with TKI between 2005 and 2019 at the Centre Léon Bérard in Lyon. We collected prognostic factors: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score, the TNM stage, the histological subtypes and the Fuhrman grade. Overall survival (OS) was defined from diagnosis of metastatic ccRCC to death. Brain progression-free survival (B-PFS) was defined from focal brain therapy to brain progression or death.Results99 patients were analyzed, 44 in the SynBM group and 55 in the MetaBM group. OS in the MetaBM group was 49.4 months versus 19.6 months in the SynBM group, p = 0.0002. The median time from diagnosis of metastasic disease to apparition of BM in the MetaBM group was 22.9 months (4.3; 125.7). SRT was used for 101 lesions (66.4%), WBRT for 25 patients (16.4%), surgery for 21 lesions (13.8%), surgery followed by radiation for 5 lesions (3.3%). B-PFS for all patients was 7 months (IC95% [5.0–10.5]).ConclusionsSurvival of patients with synchronous BM is inferior to that of patients with metachronous BM. Outcome is poor in both cases after diagnosis of BM. Brain screening should be encouraged at time of diagnosis of metastatis in ccRCC.

BackgroundPapillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC, and associated with poor outcomes in the metastatic setting. In this study, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the immune tumor microenvironment (TME), largely unknown, of patients with metastatic pRCC and identify potential therapeutic targets.MethodsWe performed quantitative gene expression analysis of TME using Microenvironment Cell Populations-counter (MCP-counter) methodology, on two independent cohorts of localized pRCC (n=271 and n=98). We then characterized the TME, using immunohistochemistry (n=38) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) (n=30) on metastatic pRCC from the prospective AXIPAP trial cohort.ResultsUnsupervised clustering identified two “TME subtypes”, in each of the cohorts: the “immune-enriched” and the “immune-low”. Within AXIPAP trial cohort, the “immune-enriched” cluster was significantly associated with a worse prognosis according to the median overall survival to 8 months (95% CI, 6 to 29) versus 37 months (95% CI, 20 to NA, p=0.001). The two immune signatures, Teff and JAVELIN Renal 101 Immuno signature, predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in clear cell RCC, were significantly higher in the “immune-enriched” group (adjusted p<0.05). Finally, five differentially overexpressed genes were identified, corresponding mainly to B lymphocyte populations.ConclusionFor the first time, using RNA-seq and immunohistochemistry, we have highlighted a specific immune TME subtype of metastatic pRCC, significantly more infiltrated with T and B immune population. This “immune-enriched” group appears to have a worse prognosis and could have a potential predictive value for response to immunotherapy, justifying the confirmation of these results in a cohort of metastatic pRCC treated with CPI and in combination with targeted therapies.Trial registration numberNCT02489695.

Background In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials. Methods Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR. Results There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82–1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69–1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00–1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95–1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36–0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45–0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42–0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59–1.18]). Conclusions MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.